COQUILLE: THE SHELL GAME - PENTAGON - FLIGHT 77
MSI,
Here's my translation of one of the Webpages I mentioned last night:
asile.org
COQUILLE: In journalistic jargon, a misprint.
Several large newspapers carried out countering inquiries to show that the Boeing 757-200 of American Airlines was well crushed on the Pentagon on September 11. Some ‘anodyne’ errors slipped by there.
Erroneous Testimony
The counter-enquiries on our preceding file, realized by the French daily newspapers “Le Monde” and “Liberation”, both start by quoting the witnesses of the attack. According to these newspapers, their testimony would confirm the crash of the Boeing 757-200 on the Pentagon. They quote in particular Steve Patterson and Mike Walter. However, the first precisely said to the Washington Post that the apparatus "had a capacity from approximately 8 to 12 people" and "made a strident noise as that of a fighter". [ "appeared to hold but eight to 12 people" and "sounded like the high-pitched squeal of has fighter" ] The second explained to Washington Post and CNN that "it was like a cruise missile with wings"... [ "it was like has cruise missile with wings" ] We are hearing various testimony on the nature of the plane.
Debris not Consistent with a Boeing American Airliner
All and for all, there is only one judicious photograph to represent remains of the Boeing which would have been crushed on the Pentagon. This image of Navy Times
navytimes.com
was very widely distributed by the Associated Press. It is presented by many newspapers like a proof of the crash of flight 77 of Americain Airlines on the Pentagon. However, this twisted sheet metal remnant does not [ See the image ] correpond with any part of a Boeing 757-200 of this this company. One can observe the images of these planes in all the directions [see photos of 757-200's on website], one does not find the corresponding colors anywhere. The presence of red and white on the remains does not necessarily mean anything besides that they are the colors of American Airlines, but more prosaically of those of the United States of America.
The presence of red and white on the remains does not mean necessarily that they are the colors of American Airlines, but more prosaically of those of the United States of America. It is strange besides that these "remains of the plane" are not even blackened whereas the plane would have been pulverized. Lastly, the Defense Department specified at the time of a press conference that they had not found any pieces of the plane outside the building, except for a headlight.
However, Le Monde of March 21, 2002, exhibits this photography of the "remains" like a proof, on a page entirely devoted to the business (page 23, to also see the leading article page 18). At the time of a debate televised (“Clearly” program on Canale Plus, March 23 2002) the journalist who carried out a counter-investigation for Le Monde, Herve Kempf, has debated the choice of this image with Thierry Meyssan, author of the book “The Appalling Fraud”.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Thierry Meyssan: "Here is a very interesting falsification. The newspaper Le Monde, which sought to induce its readers in error, published a photograph which comes from an official photographer of the marine of the United States "
Daphne Roulier (the presenter of the program): "US Navy."
Thierry Meyssan: "On this photograph, one sees a piece of metal which is not identifiable [... ] the Defence Department said to us that there is only one headlight of the plane which was found on the lawn. Thus according to the authorities, this is not an element of the plane. However the newspaper Le Monde [... ] uses that as argument. [ It ] made pretence be unaware of this conference of September 15 which we [i.e. Thierry Meyssan and Herve Kempf] discussed together at length. And you have questioned me several times on this photograph. But to add some, they announce that they contacted the author of the photograph, March 19, to ensure itself of its authenticity - that of which nobody doubts, but who strictly does not bring anything to us as for the significance of the image [... ] I would like to know why the newspaper Le Monde wanted to induce its readers in error with this photograph [... ] "
Daphne Roulier: "If I then to allow me, I believe, Herve Kempf, that you did not agree with the explanation of this photograph"
Herve Kempf: "OK! It is very interesting that Mr. Meyssan quotes this photograph and what exactly isknown about it. I.e. that I agree with him and there was a debate within the editing of Le Monde - because the edit staff is not monolithic. And personally, with other journalists, I was opposed to the publication of this photograph which was presented like an element of proof. You are completely right to announce that it is not an element of proof and that it is presented in order to pretend otherwise. "Ah! You see well that Mr. Meyssan twists the truth since it is a piece of the plane ". However if one attentively reads the legend, one will see that there is no ambiguity " [See legend in original webpage.]
The legend of the photograph published by Le Monde is indeed not at all ambiguous: "This image was taken by a military photographer of Navy Times, September 11, 2001. According to the agency Associated Press (AP), which distributes it, the photo shows remains of the plane on the western heliport of the Pentagon. AP specifies that pieces were scattered by the shock to the neighbouring motorway. It is one of the rare documents available to the photographic agencies. Mark Faram, the photographer, confirmed its authenticity in Le Monde, Tuesday March 19 " In addition, the leading article of the newspaper does not leave any doubt about the interpretation which must be made of this image: "Ono of the event videos shows the plane before it is crushed on the Pentagon, photo A even shows a piece of fuselage to a hundred meters away from the building".
It’s a shell game, a coquille, isn't this is what is called?
Contradicting Experts:
In the same broadcast of "Clearly", François Grangier, recognized accident investigation expert, explained that a plane could not have struck the front of the Pentagon.
François Grangier: "what there is of certain that when one sees the photograph of this frontage which is intact, it is obvious that the plane did not collide with the building. One can imagine that a plane of this size cannot pass through a window, leaving the framing upright. But it is obvious that if a plane were there it hit at another place"
Daphne Roulier: "Thus would a Boeing 757 at this place have to make much more damage? You agree with Thierry Meyssan about that? "
François Grangier: "Precisely on the building facade, yes. But I do not see the importance of the thing. When one looks at Internet site of the architects of the Pentagon, one sees a vague description of impact. But Machiavellism should not be seen where there is only incompetence. It is not a question of an investigation into an air crash, it an investigation of an act of terrorism "
Contrary investigation reports of Le Monde quote several anonymous specialists not giving even as much as any names: "a French airline pilot", "aeronautical experts consulted by Le Monde", "another engineer". Contrary to François Grangier, all these anonymous specialists go in the direction of the counter investigation and standard conclusion of the newspaper. The leading article of Le Monde tells us: "the experts explain that the apparatus was pulverized under the violence of the shock. The word of the experts is certainly not Gospel, and it is good that it is disputed by the citizens. Still it is necessary that this dispute is based on criteria of rigor where all the facts are taken into account. However the rumor of September 11 leaves aside all that does not go in the sense that its propagators wish. As if reality were only judgement and a matter of opinion, as if it did not have any factual consistency objectified independently of the subjective bias. Information is a work, with its rules, its trainings, its checks "
We subscribe completely to the principle enacted by the daily newspaper of reference: not to draw aside the contradictory elements. On our side, we modestly try to put this into practice.
<End> |
